Theo Book

Has anybody considered...The reason the doctrine of universal salvation is such a dispute between men is simply a failure to recognize the terms of contract.

I hired a man to replace all the screws in my thirty year old mobile home, and paint it when he finished with replacing the screws. He did a fine job. I was happy with his work ethic. Then I noticed I had a tree in the back yard that needed to go.

Would it be proper for me to expect him to dispose of that tree under the original terms of our contractual understanding?

Remember, screws and paint, but no tree. It would require a new contract of understanding, OR a new understanding of contract between us for it to become an obligation between us, him to do the work, me to pay him for the job.

If you will look at the terms of understanding between God and the various men under various contracts (read "covenants") you will cease to ask "why doesn't the old covenant (testament) warn the men about eternal torment?"

Simple. It wasn't part of the contract (covenant).

God made one universal contract between himself and all men.

INSTRUCTION:"Don't eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

CONSEQUENCE FOR DISOBEDIENCE:DEATH.

RESULT:ALL MEN ATE OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.There was at that time, ONLY Adam and eve.

They died.

END OF CONTRACT.

When God removed Adam and Eve from the garden, he removed "ALL MEN" from access to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thus removed the "contract" and all of its terms. Men no longer had that contract with God and God never punished another man for THAT act of disobecience.

We have no information as to any contractual (Covenantal) understanding between God and all men again, until after the flood. It was a promise to never again flood the whole earth, and was sealed with a sign all men could see, a rainbow in the sky between God and men.

Again, God entered into a contractual understanding with one family of men, Abraham and his seed, through Isaac in promise. There were promises of blessings and cursings which were consequential to the keeping or breaking of the covenantal understanding bound between them, God and Chosen Men from among men. It only affected one family of all the families of the earth. When Israel broke covenant with God, God did not flood the earth, nor did he destroy Greece, or Egypt, he punished Israel according to the terms of contract, entered into by the family progenitors, who had entered into covenant/contract with God FOR their offspring.

God promised Israel a new contract (read "new Covenant") and when the old contract ran out because of the Israelites failure to keep the terms, God punished them according to the terms of the old contract, while he was developing the circumstances necessary for the new covenant between him and all men.

It is a term of the new covenant that all men come to a knowledge of God and his son Jesus Christ. Terms of the contract include considerations for both temporal and eternal consequences. Men are supposed to be adults in this contract, and not children. Fathers cannot enter covenant with God FOR their children. Once they comprehend what it is they are to comprehend, they begin a life of service under the terms of a new contract, having new blessings, and new consequences.

The problem comes when some men look at prior contracts and somehow think it is unfair for God to change the terms, while it is actually the contract that was changed. So men today continually try to force the terms of one contract on the citizens of another contract.

The difference between the old and new contracts (Covenants) is the importance of the sacrifice that provided the "blood of the covenant."

Remember, God was the king of Israel, in the beginning of their contract. They had blessings beyond those of common men. Even when men begged to change the contract, God allowed them to have their way, but ONLY under contract with changed terms. He gave them a king from among their own number. BUT they continued to be under a contract (covenant) arrangement.

The blood of bulls and goats was the "blood of the covenant" because all flesh belonged to God, therefore it was his own blood by right of ownership. The blood of Jesus was the blood of the "New Covenant" - still God's own blood" because all the first-born sons of Israel belonged to God because of the covenant agreement; therefore a much more serious consideration, having much greater consequences, and both blessings and cursings way beyond what was previously understood by men. They now entered into an eternal contract having eternal consequences.

If you go back and look at the terms of contract (Covenant) between God and the men you list as "not threatened with eternal damnation" you will see that this is the true application of Covenant with God. He never punished one group of men by the terms of covenant with a different group of men.

We are under a new covenant, sealed by the blood of Jesus, and given eternal promises. It is a different covenant having eternal blessings and eternal consequences.

As for what God is going to do with all those men under prior covenants in eternity, I think THAT belongs to God and judgment. It is not within our purvue to speculate, ponder, and make eternal decisions.

I do think I would stop telling men there are no eternal consequences for disobedience, until I examined this understanding thoroughly.

Then I guess you and I have a radically different idea of what God is...

I believe God is powerful enough to achieve what He wants, and no one will stop Him, especially not someone who hates.

Does love overcome hate, or not?

It has nothing to do with love and hate, it has to do with obedience and disobedience. It has to do with which covenant you belong to. Why should people end up in hell just because you guys don't believe in it and do not think it through, and are telling them there is no hell? Read the covenant articles and tell me where my OP is wrong.

Theo Book

With all due respect, your OP overly complicates the matter. Look at the 50000 foot view.

God wants all to be saved, and He is going to do it. No one can stop him.

If you believe people suffer forever because God allows or purposes it, then you must believe one of the following:

1. Either God wants to save all but can't, thus He is frustrated foreverOR2. God doesn't want to save all men, and actually wants men to suffer forever

Which do you believe?

[Mod Edit] . God gave man free will, and he will NOT over ride that gift. He wants all men to be saved, but he leaves it to all men to choose.

God's will is frustrated all the time, and he even changes his will, so which will are you talking about, his first one or after he repented?

It was God's will that men behave a certain way, and when they refused he "repented" that he had made men and placed them on the earth.Genesis 6:7 "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

It was his will that Israel behave a certain way. Israel rebelled. God determined to punish them. They repented. He repented of the evil he was going to do to them.Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Which will of God are you referencing? The one he first expressed, or the one where he changed his mind?

With all due respect, your OP overly complicates the matter. Look at the 50000 foot view.

God wants all to be saved, and He is going to do it. No one can stop him.

If you believe people suffer forever because God allows or purposes it, then you must believe one of the following:

1. Either God wants to save all but can't, thus He is frustrated foreverOR2. God doesn't want to save all men, and actually wants men to suffer forever

Which do you believe?

What is there about "free will" that you don't understand. God gave man free will, and he will NOT over ride that gift. He wants all men to be saved, but he leaves it to all men to choose.

God's will is frustrated all the time, and he even changes his will, so which will are you talking about, his first one or after he repented?

It was God's will that men behave a certain way, and when they refused he "repented" that he had made men and placed them on the earth.Genesis 6:7 "And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

It was his will that Israel behave a certain way. Israel rebelled. God determined to punish them. They repented. He repented of the evil he was going to do to them.Exodus 32:14 And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Which will of God are you referencing? The one he first expressed, or the one where he changed his mind?

Oh boy here we go...

BTW I never said hi Theo. Welcome to the forums! The topic of 'free will' is taboo around here, so I'll leave it to the discretion of the mods.

No one can frustrate God's will forever (or even at all). But essentially that is what you are saying I guess. God will be frustrated forever, not achieving His desire to save all man. So sad for God, according to your view.

Indeed, scripture does give many examples where people are disobedient to God. But you are forgetting who is in control:

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Now you say God will never "override" our free will. Hmmm

What about Saul/Paul? Saul was on his way to damascus to persecute and kill Christians. That was Saul's will. But God sure changed that quick with a flash of light and a booming voice...

Nowhere is it Written in Scripture that a sanction of "The New Covenant" is ceaseless torture for ever.

If there remains a realm where there is ceaseless torture for ever, then God never forgives and He is never satisfied. Since He becomes "the all in all," (1 Co 15) God will always be sick and suffering pain if eternal torture was true. That this is not so is seen from the fact He effectually proclaims, "Neither shall there be any more pain...it has been done." (Rv 21:4,6)

That the last enemy death will be abolished is also clearly stated in Scripture. (cp., 1 Co 15:26) There are at least 5 kinds of death mentioned in the N.T. and however many there are, why would God predict Himself eliminating death and out of the other side of His mouth maintain it for ever? The answer is simple. He never said there is a never-ending death. The first death cannot be the last enemy as long as there are deaths subsequent to it that remain to be destroyed. God will not maintain the worst form of death we are aware of, the second death. He will not make Himself a liar.

Logged

I went to church; but, the Church wasn't on the program! JESUS WANTS HIS BODY BACK!! MEET WITHOUT HUMAN HEADSHIP!!!

Yes, direct discussions of what some refer to as "freewill" vs. "total sovereignty" are not allowed on the boards. Theo, please direct the discussion elsewhere/in different terms than "freewill", "no freewill", "freewill", "no freewill"....

Also, please stick to the scriptures - translated as accurately to the original languages as much as possible - in the discussions. [For instance, and one of many - regarding the Hebrews 34:12 passage, please take an honest look at the Hebrew word 'nacham', usually (but correctly?) translated as "repented".

Anyway, a truly open, seeking heart and mind is helpful to see God's Plan - but sometimes, He just takes us unawares and brings us to a place where we can finally see. It was during one of the most painful periods of my life that He allowed me to see His glorious plan to redeem His whole creation through the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Jesus. Yesu. Master, savior of the world. (John 4:42, I Tim. 4:10)

Theo Book

Nowhere is it Written in Scripture that a sanction of "The New Covenant" is ceaseless torture for ever.

If there remains a realm where there is ceaseless torture for ever, then God never forgives and He is never satisfied.

So if you have two sons, one who is obedient and cares for your rules, helps you out in every endeavor, and supports your every effort, and the other never obeys a rule, thwarts your every effort, hates you and avoids all contact, you treat them alike?

Where do you think the term "disinherit" comes from? It is a "last resort" tool some parents use as a threat to bring a recalcitrant child back into line. It represents a parents unequal efforts in raising children who react differently to authority. "Inheritance" is one of the main themes of covenant relationship with God. Men will either strive to inherit good, or will succumb to losses unrecoverable. Even Nature demonstrates that to be the case. God always stands ready to forgive the repentant. He takes no pleasure in the death of the sinner.

Quote

Since He becomes "the all in all," (1 Co 15) God will always be sick and suffering pain if eternal torture was true. That this is not so is seen from the fact He effectually proclaims, "Neither shall there be any more pain...it has been done." (Rv 21:4,6)

That this IS so is seen by the vact that he effectually proclaims - Revelation 21:1 "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. 4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. 5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. 6 And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.

GROUP ONE: 7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

GROUP TWO: 8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."

You are taking two verses from the middle of a warning and applying the promises to two groups as though they are one group.

Quote

That the last enemy death will be abolished is also clearly stated in Scripture. (cp., 1 Co 15:26) There are at least 5 kinds of death mentioned in the N.T. and however many there are, why would God predict Himself eliminating death and out of the other side of His mouth maintain it for ever? The answer is simple. He never said there is a never-ending death. The first death cannot be the last enemy as long as there are deaths subsequent to it that remain to be destroyed. God will not maintain the worst form of death we are aware of, the second death. He will not make Himself a liar.

I think possibly some of the disagreement comes from the fact "death" is a noun and "dying" is a verb. "Death" is not what people do. Death is a servant of God who takes people when they die. He will be destroyed at some point because there will be no more people who are subject to death. All will be immortal at some point. But being immortal does not mean saved. it means you can no longer die. Being no longer able to die is not the same as being raised from the dead. "The dead" is another noun indicating those who have passed from mortal to immortal.

As for God not saying anything about a never-ending death, neither did I. I spoke of the same everlasting punishment God speaks of in the context of which you were so selective a few moments ago. "He that overcometh" will be God's son, not every man who ever lived. see verses 7 and 8 of Rev 21 above.

Every verse Used by Universal Salvationists to prove their doctrine is selectively applied by taking them our of context in which is found the rest of the story. Look it up.

The doctrine began with the argument that God never warned the old testament people, so it shouldn't apply to us. THAT argument was developed a looong time ago. No one has ever pointed out the simple fact, of the different applications of covenant. THAT can be looked up also.

God has always stood by his covenants with men, and has always devised different approaches to different civilizations, societies, generations, families, call it what you will of man. Adam and Eve; Abraham; Abraham's first seed through Isaac; Abraham's second seed through Christ. The old testament and the new testament are both about covenants between God and Abraham; with the exceptions of the other covenants recorded in the old testament.

God's covenants with men have always had consequences, either rewards or punishments depending upon obedience and disobedience, except for God's covenant about the rainbow. His covenant in the garden was first, his covenants with Abraham were second and third. His laws and regulations through Moses were given to Abraham's seed under the second covenant, but not under the third. and were not part of the covenant with Abraham. It was limited to the children of Israel coming out of Egypt, and their children.

Deu 5:3 "The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day."

Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Under the covenant with the children of Israel under Moses, every man was to teach his children and his neighbor through the wearing of phylacteries, as well as proclamation. Under the new covenant with Abraham's seed, this was changed so that only those able to make decisions for themselves were tied to the covenant. 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Each covenant was a whole new economy as far as relationship between God and man was concerned. Promises, rewards, punishments, terms and terminology.

So if you have two sons, one who is obedient and cares for your rules, helps you out in every endeavor, and supports your every effort, and the other never obeys a rule, thwarts your every effort, hates you and avoids all contact, you treat them alike?

What if for whatever reason the disobeying son sees he was wrong and changes behavior? (Just de prodical son returning home after he learned his ways were not so good afterall) Would that father stop the punishment?

Logged

1 Timothy 2:3-4 ...God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved...John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in the one who declares the ungodly righteous ...

So if you have two sons, one who is obedient and cares for your rules, helps you out in every endeavor, and supports your every effort, and the other never obeys a rule, thwarts your every effort, hates you and avoids all contact, you treat them alike?

What if for whatever reason the disobeying son sees he was wrong and changes behavior? (Just de prodical son returning home after he learned his ways were not so good afterall) Would that father stop the punishment?

Paul Hazelwood

One of the things concerning rightly dividing the word is to distinguish what God will do as opposed to what he would prefer that we do.

God has prepared the way for all our routes which is what God does. Proverbs 5:21

Man cannot ultimatly save himself no matter what choice he makes because salvation is what God does.

What God desires to do will be done. Isaiah 46:10 God can't desire to do what we do, so our routes have been prepared for. That preparation is why ALL are Saved through Jesus Christ.

The bottom line is that anyone trying to teach a doctrine that is in any way exclusionary in the respect that there is a possibility that even one will be separated from God endlessly, refuses to believe that the one teaching it could be the one that gets the axe. You will not be able to prove otherwise except through empty claims. If you're willing to understand that it may be you that God chooses to cut off, changes his mind about and damns you or shows you you just couldn't cut it after all so too bad for you, then fine. But as long as you teach this and refuse to believe it could be you, then your doctrine is just more empty dogma that no one has to take seriously.

One of the things concerning rightly dividing the word is to distinguish what God will do as opposed to what he would prefer that we do.

God has prepared the way for all our routes which is what God does. Proverbs 5:21

Man cannot ultimatly save himself no matter what choice he makes because salvation is what God does.

Maybe you don't know scripture as well as you think you do.

Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

Quote

What God desires to do will be done. Isaiah 46:10

God expresseshis will in his logos; Even the logos of God can be corrupted.2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the logos [word] of God:

Quote

God can't desire to do what we do,

I don't even know what that means.

Quote

The bottom line is that anyone trying to teach a doctrine that is in any way exclusionary in the respect that there is a possibility that even one will be separated from God endlessly, refuses to believe that the one teaching it could be the one that gets the axe.

I don't know anyone like that. I do not make that claim. do you?

Quote

You will not be able to prove otherwise except through empty claims. If you're willing to understand that it may be you that God chooses to cut off, changes his mind about and damns you or shows you you just couldn't cut it after all so too bad for you, then fine.

What difference would that make if we are all saved anyway? And what "empty claims" Show me which of my statements you consider an empty claim.

Quote

But as long as you teach this and refuse to believe it could be you, then your doctrine is just more empty dogma that no one has to take seriously.

Paul Hazelwood

Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

Your righteousness is yours, not mine or anyone elses. But God being the power behind that righteousness is seen through many other scriptures.

Quote

God expresseshis will in his logos; Even the logos of God can be corrupted.2 Cor 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the logos [word] of God:

What is Gods responsibility to do cannot be corrupted, and Gods desire that we do not do certain things of our own will has nothing to with the corruption of that desire. It is a desire that is expressed in the light of what we devise in our heart.

Quote

God can't desire to do what we do,

Quote

I don't even know what that means.

God's desire for us to not do wrong does not inherantly keep us from doing wrong, however, it is that desire that put in place the directing of our feet despite what we do. Sometimes that direction involves suffering the consequenses of what we do so that his desire to save all mankind comes about in due time. This is where most people get lost because they have not yet come to the understanding of the relationship between our will and Gods.

Quote

The bottom line is that anyone trying to teach a doctrine that is in any way exclusionary in the respect that there is a possibility that even one will be separated from God endlessly, refuses to believe that the one teaching it could be the one that gets the axe.

If you do not believe that there is one human who will be separated from God, then it does not apply to you, no.

Quote

What difference would that make if we are all saved anyway?

I am not sure, I do not teach all are saved "anyway".

Quote

And what "empty claims" Show me which of my statements you consider an empty claim.

Obviously you are not making the empty claim I speak of since you do not believe anyone can be separated from God endlessly.

Theo Book

And what "empty claims" Show me which of my statements you consider an empty claim.

(Paul) Obviously you are not making the empty claim I speak of since you do not believe anyone can be separated from God endlessly.

Apologies for misunderstanding you.

Paul, I do not want to fly under false colors. I am not sure you misunderstand me. Let me rephrase and see what you think.

(Theo)

Quote

Ezekiel 14:14 Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the Lord GOD.

Ezekiel 14:20 Though Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, as I live, saith the Lord GOD, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter; they shall but deliver their own souls by their righteousness.

(Paul)Your righteousness is yours, not mine or anyone elses. But God being the power behind that righteousness is seen through many other scriptures.

I think all righteousness is of God, not man. For me, if I give my body to be burned for my fellow man's good, but do not know God, I cannot be counted righteous. I can only be counted "concerned" for others. I think the point of the verses quoted is, even by exercising that righteousness that comes from God one only can be involved in one's own salvation.

(Paul)

Quote

God can't desire to do what we do,

(Theo) I don't even know what that means.

(Paul)God's desire for us to not do wrong does not inherantly keep us from doing wrong, however, it is that desire that put in place the directing of our feet despite what we do. Sometimes that direction involves suffering the consequenses of what we do so that his desire to save all mankind comes about in due time. This is where most people get lost because they have not yet come to the understanding of the relationship between our will and Gods.

O.K. THAT puts a different perspective on the issue of USALV for me. I think I begin to see an argument that there may well be punishment after death, but it is not everlastiong, because after the cleansing fires, all will ultimately be brought to God. Does that sound anything like close?

(Paul)

Quote

The bottom line is that anyone trying to teach a doctrine that is in any way exclusionary in the respect that there is a possibility that even one will be separated from God endlessly, refuses to believe that the one teaching it could be the one that gets the axe.

If you do not believe that there is one human who will be separated from God, then it does not apply to you, no.

THAT is why I said I don't want to fly under false colors. I do not know either way. I do not know that some will be eternally lost in a lake of fire, nor do I know they will NOT.THAT is why I am concerned. Until I can KNOW, I cannot tell others there is no eternal punishment. And I do not believe God would keep such a thing secret.

When I read the articles published by Gary on the site, and from debating him ten years ago, I understood him to believe the fact God did not warn the peoples of other covenants of the terms of the present covenant, that somehow made him to be be a terrible God. I do not believe that. I believe the people of each covenant will be judged by the terms of the covenant under which they lived. As Paul stated, "if you are responsible to part of the law, you are responsible to the whole law." THAT was discussing the scope of man's responsibility to a particular covenant.

(Theo)

Quote

What difference would that make if we are all saved anyway?

(Paul) I am not sure, I do not teach all are saved "anyway".

O.K. In that case I have completely missed the point of Universal Salvation. Does it not teach that all mankind will ultimately be saved? If yes, why does it matter what we do in this life, we will be saved anyway. If not, why teach such a doctrine?

Logged

Paul Hazelwood

I think all righteousness is of God, not man. For me, if I give my body to be burned for my fellow man's good, but do not know God, I cannot be counted righteous. I can only be counted "concerned" for others. I think the point of the verses quoted is, even by exercising that righteousness that comes from God one only can be involved in one's own salvation.

Perhaps we agree here in concept. Even the verse that says (paraphrasing) "work out your own salvation" is not a statement saying we have the power of ourselves, it is a statement of the individual nature of God working in us. What "I" do will not work out "your" salvation.

Quote

O.K. THAT puts a different perspective on the issue of USALV for me. I think I begin to see an argument that there may well be punishment after death, but it is not everlastiong, because after the cleansing fires, all will ultimately be brought to God. Does that sound anything like close?

Generally speaking there is disagreement among Christian Universalists on the nature of Gods Judgment and when it occurs whether in this life or the next. In my point to you I would say conceptually speaking CU's will agree with you in the respect that everyone is judged by God and no one escapes that judgment.

Quote

THAT is why I said I don't want to fly under false colors. I do not know either way. I do not know that some will be eternally lost in a lake of fire, nor do I know they will NOT.THAT is why I am concerned. Until I can KNOW, I cannot tell others there is no eternal punishment. And I do not believe God would keep such a thing secret.

And like I said, I did misunderstand you in that respect, I took your comments in a more direct way. I appreciate that you say the above and absolutely agree that you should not tell others anything other than what you are convicted to say.

Quote

When I read the articles published by Gary on the site, and from debating him ten years ago, I understood him to believe the fact God did not warn the peoples of other covenants of the terms of the present covenant, that somehow made him to be be a terrible God. I do not believe that. I believe the people of each covenant will be judged by the terms of the covenant under which they lived. As Paul stated, "if you are responsible to part of the law, you are responsible to the whole law." THAT was discussing the scope of man's responsibility to a particular covenant.

To be honest I have not read all of Gary's articles because I do not follow Gary and many here do not either. I come here for the very fact that I can post my thoughts and ideas and concerns and even what I believe to be true without having to conform to one mans teachings. I will agree with you that man has a certain responsibility but it is never apart from Gods influence. I also believe that each person bears an individual responsibility that is ultimatly between the person and God. I for instance may have ideas concerning behaviour on this earth and accept and agree with many laws of the land that we have. None of that however gives me the right to determine specifically who has what standing with God.

(Theo)

Quote

What difference would that make if we are all saved anyway?

(Paul) I am not sure, I do not teach all are saved "anyway".

Quote

O.K. In that case I have completely missed the point of Universal Salvation. Does it not teach that all mankind will ultimately be saved? If yes, why does it matter what we do in this life, we will be saved anyway. If not, why teach such a doctrine?

Christian Universalism teaches the basic idea that ALL are saved through Jesus Christ. That Gods influence is what will direct everyones feet to accepting Jesus.

So when I hear someone say "all are saved anyway" to me that is saying that you think that what we believe here has to do with the ability to be saved without Jesus.

There might be a person that occasionally comes here trying to minimize the idea of Jesus Christ being necessary for salvation, but Christian Universalism in general does not teach that.

Now that being said, I think the "religious" influence of "accepting" christ is something I personally may have a differing out look on, but for the sake of our discussion on this specific point. Jesus is the only way.

Has anybody considered...The reason the doctrine of universal salvation is such a dispute between men is simply a failure to recognize the terms of the contract.

I hired a man to replace all the screws in my thirty year old mobile home, and paint it when he finished with replacing the screws. He did a fine job. I was happy with his work ethic. END OF CONTRACT.

Then I noticed I had a tree in the back yard that needed to go ...

A New contract replaces that of an Old contract.

However, if (a condition or supposition) the originator (owner) of the contract had amended the original, making an atonement (reparation) for the wrongs committed (missing a spot of paint, or leaving out a few screws, etc.) by the other party in past deeds, any liability within the Old contract would no longer be valid.

SteveW

"INSTRUCTION:"Don't eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil."

CONSEQUENCE FOR DISOBEDIENCE:DEATH.

RESULT:ALL MEN ATE OF THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL.There was at that time, ONLY Adam and eve.

They died.

END OF CONTRACT."

By scanning the rest of your posts I see you believe in scripture so I can't imagine how you can say this. The foundational premise of your argument is faulty.

In my opinion there is no possible way to reconcile Romans 5:12 ff with your premise! I don't even know how to explain it any more clearly than Paul did. The original "contract", if you are going to call it that, is still fully in effect and will be until sin and death are destroyed once and for all. Sin entered (and thereby death) through Adam and came thus to the whole race of men (through that one man).

This contract or covenant or call it what you will is never called a covenant or contract in the Bible as far as a I know so I don't know how appropriate it is to call it such and compare it to something like the Noahic or Abrahamic Covenant. Even the New Covenant Jesus proclaimed was in juxtaposition to the Old Covenant, which was not anything to do with Adam (ala Rom 5) but was the Abrahamic Covenant (see 2 Cor 3).

I don't know where that leaves the rest of your argument but I can't get past an initial premise that on the surface at least seems so out of whack.